Bradley Manning pleads guilty to 10 charges, still faces June trial

Manning will make a statement today; denies major charge of "aiding the enemy."

Private Bradley Manning has admitted he was the source of the massive stores of confidential information handed off to WikiLeaks, and he pleaded guilty to 10 charges including "possessing and wilfully communicating" all the sensitive information posted on WikiLeaks.

Manning denied 12 other charges, though, including the biggest one of all: "aiding the enemy." He faces a life sentence if convicted on that count.

Manning will read out a 35-page statement later today describing why he leaked the information, according to The Guardian reporter Ed Pilkington. In another remarkable tweet from this morning, Pilkington reports that Manning actually tried to give his stores of information to The Washington Post and The New York Times but "failed to get through to them," so he went to WikiLeaks.

Manning's case now speeds toward a June 3 court-martial, which military judge Colonel Denise Lind has estimated could take 12 weeks. Col. Lind will hear the case herself; there will be no jury at Manning's request. Manning has already been imprisoned for more than 1,000 days without a trial, a milestone that was marked by his supporters earlier this week.

As The Guardiannotes, the information leaked by Manning included video of an Apache helicopter attack in Iraq, a large leak of US diplomatic cables, files on Guantanamo detainees, and a huge chunk of confidential "war logs" from Iraq and Afghanistan.

I think its going to be hard to prove that anything he did aided the enemy. Nothing divulged was classified or can be proven to give an edge to the enemy.

It will be interesting to see what his sentence it.

Not all that hard... The information was actually classified. He shared information he was not supposed to which also made it to the enemy. That is aiding the enemy. This idiot had to know they would be gaining access to that information as well. Propaganda use and other things.

I think its going to be hard to prove that anything he did aided the enemy. Nothing divulged was classified....

Except that it was.

It sounds like that charge was pursued as a lighter alternative to treason, since he "liberated" the data to all interested parties (and let the DoD know what actions they had to take in order to stop further leaks) rather than providing that data to a specific foreign intelligence service.

I thought "aiding the enemy" counted as treason and was a death penalty offense.

The US is unique in having a written definition of treason, and "aiding the enemy" does appear in there. However, Article 104 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice is a specific crime called "Aiding the Enemy." Think of it as a lesser charge to full-on treason.

EDIT: The text of Article 104:

Any person who--

(1) aids, or attempts to aid, the enemy with arms, ammunition, supplies, money, or other things; or

(2) without proper authority, knowingly harbors or protects or gives intelligence to or communicates or corresponds with or holds any intercourse with the enemy, either directly or indirectly;

shall suffer death or such other punishment as a court-martial or military commission may direct.

I think its going to be hard to prove that anything he did aided the enemy. Nothing divulged was classified....

Except that it was.

It sounds like that charge was pursued as a lighter alternative to treason, since he "liberated" the data to all interested parties (and let the DoD know what actions they had to take in order to stop further leaks) rather than providing that data to a specific foreign intelligence service.

It's pathetic that kids here are treating this as if this guy simply leaked business secrets.

I think its going to be hard to prove that anything he did aided the enemy. Nothing divulged was classified....

Except that it was.

It sounds like that charge was pursued as a lighter alternative to treason, since he "liberated" the data to all interested parties (and let the DoD know what actions they had to take in order to stop further leaks) rather than providing that data to a specific foreign intelligence service.

It's pathetic that kids here are treating this as if this guy simply leaked business secrets.

It's kind of sad that we think leaking business secrets is no big deal.

brodie wrote:

So much for a speedy trial. Does the sixth amendment not apply to UCMJ?

And unless I'm misunderstanding this, even IF treason was on the table, isn't the death penalty just an option? Ie: the judge could give a different sentence?

I find it hard to believe that the judge would sentence him to death for this.

The law allows him to be put to death for this. See Frank M's post. Item 2 in the bolded text clearly states this would be something he could be put to death for. That said, the government is not pushing for death.

I think its going to be hard to prove that anything he did aided the enemy. Nothing divulged was classified....

Except that it was.

It sounds like that charge was pursued as a lighter alternative to treason, since he "liberated" the data to all interested parties (and let the DoD know what actions they had to take in order to stop further leaks) rather than providing that data to a specific foreign intelligence service.

It's pathetic that kids here are treating this as if this guy simply leaked business secrets.

It's upsetting when you attempt degrade someone and put words in their mouth, or their fingers in this case, by referring to them as kids in an attempt to make them seem uneducated or unable to come to a proper conclusion.

And releasing information such as he now admits to is at necessary and always illegal and obviously has consequences either giving fuel to the other sides fire or cause a public outcry for injustice.

But you shouldn't say a kid cannot take a stand or isn't capable of taking a stand.

If you think the outcry over Aaron Swartz was bad -- if this guy gets life in prison for "aiding the enemy" there's going to be a shitstorm. Heaven help the government if he gets the death penalty.

I'm partially sympathetic to Manning*, but what he did fits the definition of "aiding the enemy".

* I "get" and support whistleblowing. However, I think there was a burden on him to cull the documents and only out the ones necessary for whistleblowing, rather than just mass dumping documents to the world. If he released just the helicopter stuff along with some of the other stuff that needed to be brought to light, he'd be fine. What he did, however, was substantially wrong and potentially very dangerous.

The price of being a martyr or hero or whatever Wikileaks conned Bradley Manning into thinking he was going to be is being held accountable for it. That's what made Gandhi and Mandela great. He's trying to have his cake and eat it, too.

The moral of Manning's story is that you should never trust anyone who wants you to take the risks for them when they are powerless to save you.

If you think the outcry over Aaron Swartz was bad -- if this guy gets life in prison for "aiding the enemy" there's going to be a shitstorm. Heaven help the government if he gets the death penalty.

I'm partially sympathetic to Manning*, but what he did fits the definition of "aiding the enemy".

* I "get" and support whistleblowing. However, I think there was a burden on him to cull the documents and only out the ones necessary for whistleblowing, rather than just mass dumping documents to the world. If he released just the helicopter stuff along with some of the other stuff that needed to be brought to light, he'd be fine. What he did, however, was substantially wrong and potentially very dangerous.

The fact is that the data he released lead directly to the death's of many people who had been helping US forces. WikiLeaks did not redact names and neither did he. That left a number of folks totally exposed which resulted in their deaths.

Many people are saying what he did was necessary... debatable but fine. However, his actions come with consequences. He broke the law, a very serious law with huge consequences and whether or not his actions were justified, the were also illegal. He broke military law and he very much should face military justice for it.

Makes me wonder if it had gone to a traditional news outlet first if they would have tried to protect him. While I don't agree with the release of classified information willy nilly, I also don't think the government should be classifying information on the grounds that it might be slightly embarrassing.

If you think the outcry over Aaron Swartz was bad -- if this guy gets life in prison for "aiding the enemy" there's going to be a shitstorm. Heaven help the government if he gets the death penalty.

The government will be fine. Manning was a soldier who swore an oath. He then used his position to provide a bunch of classified information to everyone and anyone, including people who would like very much to do harm to the country he swore to protect.

There's not going to be an outcry for this guy. At least not by anyone who has any weight in affecting change anywhere.

The fact is that the data he released lead directly to the death's of many people who had been helping US forces. WikiLeaks did not redact names and neither did he. That left a number of folks totally exposed which resulted in their deaths.

If you think the outcry over Aaron Swartz was bad -- if this guy gets life in prison for "aiding the enemy" there's going to be a shitstorm. Heaven help the government if he gets the death penalty.

I'm partially sympathetic to Manning*, but what he did fits the definition of "aiding the enemy".

* I "get" and support whistleblowing. However, I think there was a burden on him to cull the documents and only out the ones necessary for whistleblowing, rather than just mass dumping documents to the world. If he released just the helicopter stuff along with some of the other stuff that needed to be brought to light, he'd be fine. What he did, however, was substantially wrong and potentially very dangerous.

The fact is that the data he released lead directly to the death's of many people who had been helping US forces. WikiLeaks did not redact names and neither did he. That left a number of folks totally exposed which resulted in their deaths.

Many people are saying what he did was necessary... debatable but fine. However, his actions come with consequences. He broke the law, a very serious law with huge consequences and whether or not his actions were justified, the were also illegal. He broke military law and he very much should face military justice for it.

I think ultimately it will come down to whether or not the court believes intent matters. I don't think Bradley Manning intended to aid the enemy or for people to die because of the information he leaked. He should go to jail, but life in prison is a bit much, IMO. His view was myopic is all.

"The traitor deserves what he gets" attitude is why the United States willfully gets away with flagrant human rights abuses. That was what he was trying to expose. You may not like his method, but we shouldn't get to flout international law at our convenience because we can classify it for so long that no one will even care to sift through the records once it is unclassified. We still haven't been held to task over the content of those cables simply because we're the USA and no one ever will.

I think ultimately it will come down to whether or not the court believes intent matters. I don't think Bradley Manning intended to aid the enemy or for people to die because of the information he leaked. He should go to jail, but life in prison is a bit much, IMO. His view was myopic is all.

"The traitor deserves what he gets" attitude is why the United States willfully gets away with flagrant human rights abuses. That was what he was trying to expose. You may not like his method, but we shouldn't get to flout international law at our convenience because we can classify it for so long that no one will even care to sift through the records once it is unclassified. We still haven't been held to task over the content of those cables simply because we're the USA and no one ever will.

Intent has no bearing in a military court when relating to intelligence dissemination. Manning didn't simply let slip secrets that he knew as a normal part of his duties, he actively sought out and copied secrets to which he had no right and then disseminated those secrets to others. This is simply never acceptable.

What people need to remember is when you volunteer for the USA military, you essentially give up certain privileges. One of those is the whistle blower option. Had he done this responsibly, relating to secrets to which he was properly entitled, then he'd have been fine. That is not at all what he did.

I believe his intent was right but the lack of forethought of possible* fallout was a major fault.

Nonetheless, the dumps did show a very serious flaw in our current classification system. It is being used far too often, on far too many things that it doesnt even need to be applied to in the first place. Which undermines the entire classification system because if you classify everything, with tons of people having the ability to grant that status, the system is pointless and broken (as it is at the moment).

*Ive not seen any solid, irrefutable evidence that any of the leaked information lead directly to the deaths of anyone.

(2) without proper authority, knowingly harbors or protects or gives intelligence to or communicates or corresponds with or holds any intercourse with the enemy, either directly or indirectly;

shall suffer death or such other punishment as a court-martial or military commission may direct.[/b]

I'm curious how he claims that (2) didn't happen.

Honest question: what evidence exists that the information was given to the enemy directly or indirectly?

If "the enemy" was Wikileaks, it's now pretty cut and dried that he gave them the information directly but then my next question would be how Wikileaks (or anyone else for that matter) came to be defined as "the enemy".

On the other hand, if "the enemy" was Al-Qaeda or one of the more obvious suspects, presumably he's only accused of given them the information indirectly. In which case, is there any evidence that the enemy acquired it? Maybe I haven't been particularly observant but I haven't heard stories of informants being killed using information that only came to light via Manning's leak, terrorists thanking him for the juicy information or similar.

One might say that of course they acquired it because they must follow the news and they'd be implausibly foolish not to read the leaks themselves - but without evidence that would only be an assumption and I wonder whether it would meet whatever standard of proof the court requires. One might also say that they don't need to have acquired it, it's enough that he let the information become publicly available - but it strikes me as unfair that he could be convicted of "aiding the enemy" without anyone needing to prove that the enemy was ever aided.

/armchair lawyering

Edit: For the point I was trying to make, that last sentence should be "it strikes me as unfair that he could be convicted of "aiding the enemy" without the enemy actually being aided".

I think its going to be hard to prove that anything he did aided the enemy. Nothing divulged was classified or can be proven to give an edge to the enemy.

It will be interesting to see what his sentence it.

He gave the info to Asange. Wouldn't the US have to prove he was the enemy. I take that back, the US doesn't have to prove anything, the US just does what it deems necessary for its paranoid survival.

(2) without proper authority, knowingly harbors or protects or gives intelligence to or communicates or corresponds with or holds any intercourse with the enemy, either directly or indirectly;The key word there is "indirectly." It was made available to the enemy due to his actions, even if he didn't directly give it to them.

The fact is that the data he released lead directly to the death's of many people who had been helping US forces. WikiLeaks did not redact names and neither did he. That left a number of folks totally exposed which resulted in their deaths.

Is that actually true? Did people really die because of this? Care to elaborate and provide some more info? I'm not trying to defend Manning, what he did was wrong, I'm just curious.

What was he really trying to accomplish anyway?Before he dumped that stuff was there anyone in the world who didn't already know that the US has been violating human rights since the 1700s? Was there anyone who didn't know that sometimes the wrong people get shot during a war? Was there anybody who didn't know that embassies are hubs for espionage and subversion? Does anyone not realize that every government does as much of that stuff as they're big enough to get away with?He didn't do any great service to society. He's more of a tattle-tale than a whistleblower.

I think its going to be hard to prove that anything he did aided the enemy. Nothing divulged was classified or can be proven to give an edge to the enemy.

It will be interesting to see what his sentence it.

He gave the info to Asange. Wouldn't the US have to prove he was the enemy. I take that back, the US doesn't have to prove anything, the US just does what it deems necessary for its paranoid survival.

(2) without proper authority, knowingly harbors or protects or gives intelligence to or communicates or corresponds with or holds any intercourse with the enemy, either directly or indirectly;The key word there is "indirectly." It was made available to the enemy due to his actions, even if he didn't directly give it to them.

That gets at what I was asking above which is whether "making available" = "giving" for the purposes of the law.

I think it's a reasonable question for a non-lawyer to ask (though I would say that) but I see the downvotes have started dismissing it already.

EDIT: To elaborate, I (hypothetically) host some Metallica mp3s on my server which anyone can access (I have made them available). If no-one can prove that anyone has ever accessed them, is that enough to say I have given them to anyone? I'm aware it's not a perfect example because it's criminal vs. civil with different standards of proof etc.

(2) without proper authority, knowingly harbors or protects or gives intelligence to or communicates or corresponds with or holds any intercourse with the enemy, either directly or indirectly;

shall suffer death or such other punishment as a court-martial or military commission may direct.[/b]

I'm curious how he claims that (2) didn't happen.

Honest question: what evidence exists that the information was given to the enemy directly or indirectly?

If "the enemy" was Wikileaks, it's now pretty cut and dried that he gave them the information directly but then my next question would be how Wikileaks (or anyone else for that matter) came to be defined as "the enemy".

On the other hand, if "the enemy" was Al-Qaeda or one of the more obvious suspects, presumably he's only accused of given them the information indirectly. In which case, is there any evidence that the enemy acquired it? Maybe I haven't been particularly observant but I haven't heard stories of informants being killed using information that only came to light via Manning's leak, terrorists thanking him for the juicy information or similar.

One might say that of course they acquired it because they must follow the news and they'd be implausibly foolish not to read the leaks themselves - but without evidence that would only be an assumption and I wonder whether it would meet whatever standard of proof the court requires. One might also say that they don't need to have acquired it, it's enough that he let the information become publicly available - but it strikes me as unfair that he could be convicted of "aiding the enemy" without anyone needing to prove that the enemy was ever aided.

/armchair lawyering

I think the evidence is pretty clear that he indirectly gave it to the enemy. Firstly, he gave it to WikiLeaks who he new would make the information public. Based on making it public is a reasonable assumption that the "enemy" would access it.

The Army's claims are not only that the enemy did access it which would be enough, but that they also used it to their advantage. Whether there are facts to support that claim or not is more or less what a large portion of the trials are about.

Whenever I read the comments on these articles, I really wonder if people have thought through what they are saying.

Yes, some of the material was classified because it might be embarrassing (the State Department files for example.) But often, that's information that needed to be transmitted, but could not be shared publicly for fear of harming diplomatic relations with another country. I wonder if people realize that harming our relationships with another country could result in people dying.

Honestly, when it comes to war and foreign relations, I'm not sure what choice we have but to trust the government to classify information properly. We cannot conduct either if everything is public, not safely or effectively at least.

Even if there were no direct lives lost due to Manning's actions (I've seen conflicting answers on the question,) it is a simple matter of fact that the files he illegally leaked were used for propaganda purposes and to harm American interests. Having taken an oath as a member of the US Armed Forces, he is (rightfully) held to a much higher standard. I don't believe there is a legitimate question of whether the enemies of the US benefited and that should have been an obvious consequence of his actions. Unless he can assert an insanity defense (claiming that he didn't know what he was doing or what the consequences would be,) I can't see a valid argument that he is not guilty of aiding the enemy.

Before he dumped that stuff was there anyone in the world who didn't already know that the US has been violating human rights since the 1700s? Was there anyone who didn't know that sometimes the wrong people get shot during a war? Was there anybody who didn't know that embassies are hubs for espionage and subversion? Does anyone not realize that every government does as much of that stuff as they're big enough to get away with?He didn't do any great service to society. He's more of a tattle-tale than a whistleblower.

There is a difference between "knowing" (via assumption) and having hard proof. Now there is proof.

I think its going to be hard to prove that anything he did aided the enemy. Nothing divulged was classified....

Except that it was.

It sounds like that charge was pursued as a lighter alternative to treason, since he "liberated" the data to all interested parties (and let the DoD know what actions they had to take in order to stop further leaks) rather than providing that data to a specific foreign intelligence service.

It's pathetic that kids here are treating this as if this guy simply leaked business secrets.

It's kind of sad that we think leaking business secrets is no big deal.

brodie wrote:

So much for a speedy trial. Does the sixth amendment not apply to UCMJ?

And unless I'm misunderstanding this, even IF treason was on the table, isn't the death penalty just an option? Ie: the judge could give a different sentence?

I find it hard to believe that the judge would sentence him to death for this.

The law allows him to be put to death for this. See Frank M's post. Item 2 in the bolded text clearly states this would be something he could be put to death for. That said, the government is not pushing for death.

Then so be it. If he committed the crime he should be man enough to face the consequences for doing so. He openly admitted to voluntarily sharing classified information. He wiped his ass with the oath he took and the trust the US military, and by extension the US people, put in him. If the courts find him guilty of treason then let them carry out the punishment accordingly.